The state House of Representatives enacted voter ID into North Carolina law on Wednesday, implementing a ballot referendum approved by voters in November with the legislature’s twenty-first veto override of Governor Roy Cooper.

The veto override by the state House is the General Assembly’s final legislative action enacting voter ID into North Carolina law. It follows approval by the people of a proposed constitutional amendment to require photo ID at the polls in the November midterm election.

Gov. Cooper’s veto message also said SB824 was “designed to suppress the rights” of voters, even though the bill allows any voter to assert a “reasonable impediment” at the polls for why they don’t have a qualifying ID.

The legislation further accommodates religious objectors, provides for free state-issued IDs, and accepts a broad range of qualifying IDs including student IDs, drivers’ licenses, passports, military and veteran IDs, voter and state employee cards, and Native American tribal cards. SB824 even allows drivers’ licenses from other states to qualify in some circumstances.

Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) has filed legislation proposing voter ID in North Carolina in every legislative term since first taking office in 2002.

“Delivering a voter ID law to North Carolinians who supported this simple yet essential election integrity measure on the ballot in November was a constitutional imperative,” Moore said.

“I’m proud of the commitment House lawmakers made to finish this accomplishment and keep our promise to the people of North Carolina who approved voter ID in our state constitution.”

Thirty-four other states have some form of voter ID law. North Carolina is the last state in the Southeast not to require some form of voter ID.

Rep. David Lewis (R-Harnett), a chairman of the House Committee on Elections and Ethics Law, noted Gov. Cooper’s voter ID veto was issued at 4:00 p.m. on a Friday “to bury his defiance in a news dump with inflammatory language to keep his political base on his side.”

“My district is full of good, hard-working, well-intentioned people – there is nothing sinister or cynical about them,” Lewis said. “The governor does not have a problem with this legislature, he has a problem with his citizens.”

“This bill does exactly what the people of this state wanted us to do.”

Just when it seemed the legislature might be around for another week of work followed by a veto override session, now legislators are heading home. The chambers passed the bills on their respective calendar, and legislators only have to wait to find out which, if any, bill will be vetoed. The Governor will receive the remaining bills today, and since the legislature technically remains in session, he’ll have ten days to act on the bills.

Both the Senate and the House passed the elections bill, HB1029 [Bipartisan State Board Changes], with broad bipartisan support. The Senate vote was 34-3, with all but one Democratic senator joining with the majority of Republican senators to pass the bill. In the House, majorities in both parties supported the bill, with the bill passing 81-18.

The bill moved forward quickly because legislative leaders used a transportation bill that was in a conference committee as the “vehicle” for moving the bill. Essentially, the election bill was substituted for the transportation bill, and then came to the floor of both chambers with full debate but no ability to amend the bill.

The bill summary outlines every provision in the bill. However, it is fair to say that the bill “returns the law to the 2016 structure for elections, ethics, and lobbying” with a few modifications. The former State Board of Elections is reestablished, with the Governor having control of those appointments. The former State Ethics Commission is also reestablished with an even split in its members as between the two parties. The Secretary of State again has authority over registrations and reporting by lobbyists and those that hire them.

Of local interest is a modification to the composition of county boards of election to consist of five persons, with four members appointed by the State Board of Elections and one member appointed by the Governor, with the Governor’s appointment serving as chair.

Responding to the apparent voter fraud involving Bladen and Robeson counties which may require a rerun of the election for the Ninth Congressional seat, the bill amends the procedure for voting an absentee ballot in the presence of two persons. It requires the voter to do one of the following: (1) have the application notarized or (2) have the two persons in whose presence the voter marked that voter’s ballot to certify that the voter is the registered voter submitting the marked ballot. The bill also provides that for any new congressional general election ordered, a primary must be conducted for that election. So in the Ninth District, if the State Board of Election orders a new election, the race may not be between the two candidates who ran in November—Mark Harris (R) and Dan McCready (D). The problems that may give rise to a new election may well have occurred in both the primary and the general elections, and the legislature changed current law to have a total re-run of the election—not just the general election.

One concern as we approached the end of the session was that we’d take up SB821 [Sunset Unconstitutional Boards & Commissions], a bill that mirrored a provision in HB1117 [Restructure Election Admin/Ethics/Lobbying/CF] that would have sunsetted a number of boards and commissions that were found to have been unconstitutionally constituted since the Governor did not have the majority of appointments to each board. What became clear was that, even if SB821 passed the House, it didn’t have enough support to withstand a veto. In fact, it appeared the bill would fail in the House. Rather, than waste time on that debate, House leadership—meaning Speaker Moore—pulled the bill.

My special thanks go to lobbyists for the NC chapters of The Nature Conservancy and the Audubon Society as well as Friends of the State Parks. They helped mobilize opposition to the sunset bill. Child serving organizations also helped, and numerous local government officials spoke to their legislators about why these boards and commissions needed to be reconstituted. It is easy to get jaded about the legislative process, but this is the latest example of people’s opinions affecting the outcome of a legislative debate.

The last matter to be taken up was a technical corrections bill, SB469 [Technical Corrections]. Since this was the last bill to pass, various legislators in both chambers tried to add their favorite provisions to the bill, and it was not clear that any bill would actually move forward. After extensive negotiations, the bill passed 57-35 in the House and 19-8 in the Senate, largely along party lines. My sense was that Democrats didn’t like a municipal charter school technical provision and a stormwater provision. I was not excited about either of these provisions but, having kept some number of provisions out of the bill, felt like I needed to compromise and support the bill.

Ultimately, the bill that was put forward was short on new policy and was mostly real, technical corrections. While I had nothing I was trying to get into the bill, I worked hard to keep some provisions relating to environmental protection and similar matters from being added to the bill. My view is that if we want to change policy then we should do it in the light of day with a review in a committee. Sneaking a provision in a technical corrections bill that is not subject to amendment is not right. As I leave Raleigh, I’m happy that I helped block some policy changes that weren’t fully vetted.

Legislators head home expecting that they will be back for one more day to vote on any vetoes issued by Governor Cooper. The expectation is that he will veto the Voter ID bill, SB824 [Implementation of Voter ID Const. Amendment], but he may allow the elections bill to become law. I understand that the Governor opposes one provision in the technical corrections bill related to municipal charter schools, but I wonder whether he’ll veto that bill because of his objection to one provision. Of course, the bill has changed, and he may have other objections to it. Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

When the legislature adjourned its “Short Session” in late June, it didn’t adjourn for the year. Rather, it adjourned until November 27th. At the time, the thought was, if one or more of the constitutional amendments on the November ballot passed, the legislature might need to pass implementing legislation. For example, voters could approve the Voter ID amendment, but the legislature would need to define what type of voter identification would be accepted. Well, the amendment passed, so we came back to consider Voter ID legislation.

The adjournment resolution, however, set no limits on what matters could be taken up during the November session. So almost any matter can be brought up for consideration during the session, giving rise to concerns that a lame duck legislature could take up major legislation during its end-of-the-year session. Since Republicans lost their veto-proof majority in the November elections, the concern is that Republicans in the majority in both chambers will pass legislation that Governor Cooper would veto, but the veto would be overridden. However, if that same legislation passed next year, and Governor Cooper vetoed it, his veto might hold since Democrats will have enough votes to keep the veto from being overridden.

So far, the session has proceeded with few fireworks. The Senate and House passed a Voter ID bill, SB824 [Implementation of Voter ID Const. Amendment], that implements the constitutional requirement that voters offering to vote in person provide a photographic identification before voting. The bill provides that any of the following is a valid ID: A North Carolina driver’s license, a non-driver identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles without charge, an identification card issued by a county board of election, a U.S. passport, college student IDs, military and veteran IDs, and tribal enrollment cards.

The debate over the bill primarily focused on what types of IDs should be acceptable. Democrats mostly argued that there were other IDs that ought to be permissible, such as high school IDs or employer-issued IDs. Republicans argued the bill already provided a broad range of acceptable IDs and that IDs that were not government-issued should not be allowed. Some Republicans actually thought the bill was too liberal in its definition of acceptable IDs. Their particular concern was the use of IDs issued by colleges and community colleges. They felt that students coming from out-of-state shouldn’t be able to use school-issued IDs, since it allowed students to vote when they probably were still using the driver’s licenses issued by other states.

The Senate bill was amended in the House to require the State Board of Elections to implement rules for verifying absentee ballots in a more secure manner consistent with in-person photo ID requirements. This provision was clearly the result of the apparent fraud involving absentee ballots in Robeson and Bladen counties.

The bill passed the Senate on a 31-11 vote which was largely along party lines with all Republican senators joined by three Democratic senators voting for passage. Similarly, the House passed the bill by a vote of 67-40, with two Democratic House Members joining all but one Republican in supporting the bill.

What surprised me was how few communications I received from constituents about Voter ID. What I did receive mostly came from constituents who had previously contacted me to oppose the Voter ID amendment, but now want the legislature be very liberal in determining what IDs should be accepted. Medicaid cards (which aren’t photo IDS), high school IDs, and employer-issued IDs were among the suggestions; none of those suggestions are in the bill. Recognizing that obtaining photo IDs from a local DMV office can be difficult, the House provided monies for county boards of election to issue photo IDs.

In contrast to the Voter ID bill, the disaster relief bill, SB823 [Hurricane Florence/Supplemental Act], passed unanimously in both chambers. It provided an appropriation of almost $300 million for additional Hurricane Florence disaster relief. In mid-October, the legislature passed two bills allocating over $850 million for Florence-related disaster relief. The largest appropriation of $240 million went to provide grants to farmers for crop losses. Other large appropriations included $25 million for repair and renovation of school facilities, $5 million for loans to small businesses, $10 million for commercial fishing assistance, and $18.75 million for mitigation and cleanup of coastal storm damages to ocean beaches, dunes and shorelines. Thus far, my primary focus in this session has been on disaster relief since I authored most of the legislation related to Hurricane Matthew.

The last major bill taken up by the House was SB469 [Technical Corrections]. In theory, a technical corrections bill should only contain corrections to earlier legislation, typically clarifying earlier legislation or changing dates or correcting cross-references to other legislation. In actuality, technical corrections bills often attract substantive changes to earlier legislation or even totally new provisions.

Looking towards this week, the issues that need to be addressed are issues involving the State Board of Elections and Ethics. The legislature has made several attempts to restructure that board, but those attempts have been successfully challenged in the courts. The latest effort to restructure the State Board is HB1117 [Restructure Election Admin/Ethics/Lobbying/CF], which would split the agency putting its functions under the oversight of two boards. One board controlled by the governor would handle elections. The five person board would be appointed by the governor—three from his party and two from the other party. A second eight person board would handle ethics, campaign finance and lobbying with the appointments equally split between the governor and legislative leaders.

With the focus being on Voter ID and disaster relief, election-related legislation has not begun to move through the committees or either chamber, but a court-imposed deadline to take action probably means that the bill or other bills on the same topic will move next week.

The real reason for sunsetting the boards and commissions is to create a disincentive for Governor Cooper to challenge the composition of other similarly constituted boards and commissions. Moreover, the perspective was that the Governor had a great interest in the boards and commissions being reconstituted consistent with the court decision and by sunsetting the boards and commissions Republicans gained leverage in negotiations on this and other issues.

My view is that we should simply reconstitute the boards and commissions, consistent with the court decision, and I filed a bill to do just that, HB1120 [Reconstitute Various Boards & Commissions]. There is no one saying that these boards and commissions weren’t functioning, and I think we shouldn’t be playing politics with boards and commissions that are actually doing their jobs. By executive order Governor Cooper reconstituted the boards and commissions, and he reappointed all of the board or commission members appointed by the legislature except those that would be expiring soon. My pitch to my colleagues is not to play politics with programs that are working.

The Clean Water Management Trust Fund was the primary funder when the DuPont State Recreational Forest was acquired. It also funded Fletcher’s park and helped Conserving Carolina, the local land trust, on a wide range of projects. Similarly, the Parks & Recreation Trust Fund has helped fund most of our towns and cities parks. I’ve heard from constituents about the important work done by the Child Care Board.

The assumption is that Governor Cooper may veto one or more of the bills passed by the legislature — maybe the Voter ID bill, the technical corrections bill, the elections board bill, or the boards and commissions bill. For that reason, when the legislature goes home this week, it will technically stay in session to force the Governor to take action in ten days. That will allow the legislature to come back and consider overriding any vetoes.

State lawmakers yesterday allocated $793 million in additional Hurricane Florence relief funding in response to the preliminary needs assessment released last week, bringing the legislature’s total commitment to disaster recovery since the storm to $850 million. For comparison, after Hurricane Matthew, the legislature appropriated $200 million two months after the storm. With this latest action, the North Carolina General Assembly has allocated over $1.2 billion for hurricane recovery since 2016.

Representative McGrady is a primary sponsor of the legislation.

The Hurricane Florence Disaster Recovery Fund (HFDRF) appropriates $65 million to provide a state match for federal disaster assistance and another $65 million state match for federal transportation assistance. It spends $60 million on capital recovery funds for public school facilities and $30 million for capital needs in the University of North Carolina system. Another $28 million will benefit local governments, while agriculture recovery received $50 million. More than $30 million was directed to housing recovery support.

Tens of millions more dollars will meet needs in behavioral health, community hospitals, small businesses, community colleges, and mosquito abatement efforts in areas of North Carolina affected by Hurricane Florence. Funding for coastal beach renourishment, dredging needs, marine debris cleanup, and commercial fishermen were also included in the recovery package.

The measure includes a fix for members of the National Guard who participated in the response to Hurricane Matthew. The bill waives outstanding debt service members owed due to accidental overpayments by the Department of Public Safety (DPS). It also requires DPS to reimburse service members who already repaid the department.

As part of the continuing collaboration among state leaders to respond to the historic storm, officials from the Office of State Budget and Management (OSBM), including State Budget Director Charles Perusse, briefed key appropriations leaders and fiscal staff in the North Carolina legislature on Thursday. Participants discussed the Governor’s proposal at length in a productive working session.

OSBM told lawmakers that, consistent with the descriptions contained in the Governor’s report, the needs assessment released this week was a preliminary figure that may change based on further analysis and the availability of additional federal aid. OSBM also said that this is a long-term, five-year plan.

The report indicated that more concrete, on-the-ground data will soon be available to update the preliminary needs assessment, which relied in part on computer modeling. As such, some assessed needs may shift considerably over time as federal aid becomes clearer and damage assessments continue. Education needs, for example, are particularly preliminary, and many of the damage assessments will change in OSBM’s final report, lawmakers and staff heard from administration officials.

OSBM is also working on an estimate of how much funding could be spent in the next six months. They indicated that course corrections may be required over time. Based on this information and the Governor’s report, the legislature appropriated a majority of the funding immediately while preserving maximum flexibility to meet the final needs assessments that are currently ongoing.

Most of the funding transfer comes from the state’s record $2 billion rainy day fund.

In a joint statement, state House Speaker Tim Moore (R-Cleveland) and Senate Leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said, “Since Hurricane Florence hit, we’ve sought to take politics out of the relief effort. Today’s historic, bipartisan aid package is yet another step in a collaborative recovery process that we hope will continue.”

State lawmakers convened in Raleigh on Monday for the second time in as many weeks, and are scheduled to go into session again in November. The legislature plans to continue collaborating with state agencies as they finalize their needs assessments for Hurricane Florence.

According to the most recent report on Hurricane Matthew funding, approximately $124 million has been disbursed, $115 million has been awarded, and $121 million remains available out of the total $360 million allocated in prior disaster recovery packages since 2016.

At the end of the Short Session in late June, the General Assembly passed several bills that placed six constitutional amendments on the ballot for a vote in the upcoming November election. Unlike other legislation, proposed constitutional amendments do not require the approval of the governor; therefore, Governor Cooper didn’t play a role in proposing the amendments.

While proposed constitutional amendments periodically are on the ballot, six is the most to be considered at one time in recent history. Given the range of topics and number of amendments, I was disappointed my constitutional amendment bill, House Bill 3 [Eminent Domain], which passed the House with broad bipartisan support, was not considered by the Senate.

To be placed on the ballot, constitutional amendments require three-fifths votes by each legislative chamber, which means 72 votes in the House and 30 in the Senate. Following the passage of the amendments, two of the original proposed constitutional amendments were successfully challenged in court; therefore, the legislature came back and changed those amendments to conform with the court decision. The two revised amendments were subsequently deemed to be in proper form.

Disagreements ensued over how the amendments would be described on the ballot by the Constitutional Amendments Publication Commission, which is comprised of the Legislative Services Officer Paul Coble (R), Attorney General Josh Stein (D), and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall (D). The legislature cut short arguments by simply requiring each amendment to be entitled “Constitutional Amendment.”

Except for the income tax cap amendment, none of the proposed amendments have implementing language. For example, if voters adopt the Voter ID amendment requiring a photo ID to vote, the legislature will have to pass legislation determining what constitutes a valid photo ID. Anticipating that one or more of the amendments will pass, the legislature has already scheduled a session after Thanksgiving to consider implementing legislation for any amendments that receive voter approval.

I voted on whether to put the amendments on the ballot, and I originally voted against putting one of the amendments on the ballot, HB913 [Bipartisan Ethics and Elections Enforcement], essentially for the reasons a court subsequently determined to strike the amendment. When that amendment was revised consistent with the court’s decision, I changed my vote to put a replacement amendment on the ballot.

While some of my colleagues probably view their votes as indicating support or opposition to each amendment, my votes only reflect whether I thought the amendments were appropriate for voter consideration. In responding to constituent communications, I’ve shared my thoughts on the amendments and have promised to summarize my thoughts on each one. If you want another take on the amendments, you might read Longleaf Politics’6 N.C. Constitutional Amendments You will Vote on in 2018 Explained.

So here is what I think.

SB75 [Const. Amd. – Max Income Tax Rate of 7.0%] lowers the current constitutional maximum income tax rate of 10% to 7%. Currently North Carolina has a flat income tax rate of 5.499%, which will be decreasing to 5.25% for the next tax cycle.

While I am generally against enshrining arbitrary limits in the state constitution, there is already a 10% cap in the state constitution. The original bill proposed a 5.5% tax cap, which many of my colleagues and I believed was too restrictive. The bill was amended to a more moderate 7% maximum rate. With this change, supporters argue it will allow the state flexibility to deal with unforeseen financial challenges, while ensuring that North Carolina maintains a low tax rate. The House passed the proposed amendment by a vote of 73-45, and the Senate passed the amendment by a 34-13 vote, largely along partisan lines.

My view: If voters think a tax cap is needed, then they can put the cap in the constitution, but I don’t like these sort of provisions. I’m not voting for it.

HB1092 [Const. Amendment – Require Photo ID to Vote] requires voters to provide photo identification before voting in person. I voted to put this on the ballot because I believe the only way to require a voter ID is by a constitutional amendment since a federal court having jurisdiction over North Carolina seems to feel any restriction is racially motivated.

The majority of states require a voter ID. H 1092 passed the House by a vote of 74-43 and 33-12 in the Senate.

My view: I support this amendment. Picture IDs are required for all sorts of daily activities, and they will have to be provided free-of-charge by the state. I don’t believe requiring a voter ID is discriminatory.

HB551 [Strengthening Victims’ Rights] (also known as Marsy’s Law) is an amendment that ensures victims of violent crimes receive certain enumerated rights such as being allowed to be present at court proceedings of the accused. While there are already several victims rights laws on the books, the bill sponsor wanted to ensure that these rights are constitutionally protected rights and make their enforcement uniform throughout the state. I voted in favor of H551, which was the most widely supported amendment with a vote of 107-9 in the House and 45-1 in the Senate.

My view: If voters feel that there is a need to explicitly recognize victims’ rights in the constitution, they should support the amendment. The amendment will not really change North Carolina law; in other words, it is not strictly needed. I’ll likely vote for it.

SB677 [Protect Right to Hunt and Fish] would constitutionally ensure that North Carolinians have a right to use traditional methods to hunt, fish, and harvest wildlife, subject only to certain limitations promoting wildlife conservation and resource management. I voted to put this proposed amendment on the ballot, although one may question why we need to put this in the constitution when no one seems to be trying to stop or thwart hunting of fishing in North Carolina. More than twenty other states have a similar measure in their state’s constitution, so this amendment isn’t uncommon. S 677 passed the House 92-23 and passed the Senate 41-6.

My view: Like with Marsy’s Law, this is simply a question of whether one feels hunting and fishing rights should be enshrined in the state constitution. I’m ambivalent about including it in the text of the constitution.

HB3 [Nonpartisan Judicial Merit Amendment] would put forward a new process to fill vacant judicial seats, which are currently filled unilaterally by the Governor. S 814 does not affect the current process for regular judicial elections. If approved by the voters, this amendment would allow citizens to nominate their fellow citizens for any judicial vacancy, nominees would then be evaluated by a nonpartisan commission. The General Assembly would review qualified nominees and advance at least two names to the Governor who would appoint one of the nominated persons within 10 days.

I voted in support of S 814 because I’m familiar with cases of governors leaving office appointing judges in the last hours of their terms. I am concerned that the General Assembly has not passed implementing language that would give greater detail and assurance as to how this process would take place. S 814 passed the House by a vote of 73-45 and by a vote of 34-13 in the Senate.

My view: Elections have consequences, and our constitution gives governors the power to make appointments. While I’m not sure that there is a huge problem with gubernatorial appointment of judges supporting a need for the amendment, I do like the idea of merit selection of judges. However, my inclination is to vote against this particular amendment.

HB4 [Bipartisan Ethics and Elections enforcement] This amendment would establish a Bipartisan State Board of Ethics and Elections Enforcement. The new board would be modeled after the Federal Elections Commission s by providing for an 8-member board appointed by legislative leaders, with the aim of removing partisanship from the oversight of elections. No more than 4 members could be from the same political party. I was the only Republican to vote against this amendment in its original form, H 913, but I supported putting the amendment on the ballot when it was changed in response to a judicial decision. It passed the House by a vote of 73-33 and 32-14 in the Senate.

My view: Historically, the governor appointed the nine person board with the majority coming from the governor’s political party. For a long time, this system seemed to work. I didn’t feel strongly about the amendment until the current state election board overruled Henderson County’s own election board by adding Sunday voting and also ousting one party’s appointment to the county election board in favor of another appointment. Since hyper-partisanship is now evident on the state election board, I’m supporting this amendment with hopes that an evenly divided board would have to learn how to work together.

With so many constitutional amendments on the ballot, it is important you get out to vote this upcoming election cycle.